Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the
world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to
over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a
wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history,
humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced
features available, you will need to register first. Registration is
absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

I have to apologise, I am not used to this forum stuff, and getting what I intend or attempt to say down clearly hasn’t been easy, I am a kinaesthetic learner, not an intellectual giant,

Anyway, trying to be clearer....

The question begs to be asked, why did Ueshiba not see it as paramount to pass on the Aiki that he learnt from Takeda?
As I have seen stated elsewhere on other threads by Dan, Takeda passed it on to more than Ueshiba, as Sugawa shows. But O'Sensei chose not to pass it on after the war it seems. Why not? Once again, perhaps he surpassed that in both technique and spirit.
And if it was only taught before the foundation of Aikido, why bring it back into Aikido at all? Because the prewar students could do it?
And why choose Tohei, a man that didn’t study Aiki as his tenth Dan technical director?
What changed in the founder during and after the war? I think there was evidence that he taught different things before the war, as can be seen by Shirata and Shioda both being able to represent internal power from the Daito Ryu syllabus but that wasn’t Aikido, at that time, that was Aiki budo, or Aiki jujitsu, or whatever the founder called it before the war, before the creation of Aikido. Before Iwama.
To say that there was even prewar Aikido is an oxymoron, as Aikido was established after the war.

So if you want to study Aiki budo or Aiki jujitsu or Daito Ryu, why study Aikido at all?

And speaking of Iwama, and once again, presenting to you a valid alternative to an explanation of O'Sensei's teachings, what I love about this model is it was written by a student of Saito, through the study of the text budo, so an Iwama student explaining the origin of the founders Aikido through the eyes of someone that studied at the founding place of Aikido, http://www.aikidotakemusu.org/en/rubriques/163
I have heard Sensei say that as he sat at the founders bedside whilst he was dying he lamented that no one was actually following his Aikido, no one was following the path he set out. If that was true, and the path was IP, then did he forget he gave Shioda his 9th Dan in his Aiki, or did he forget he had taught these things to Shirata as well.
Or once again. Was he lamenting that no one actually got what he really wanted them to get.
In all of the replies to this thread, none of the questions stated above have been adequately answered, isn’t the above case(Aikido Takemusu) just as valid an explanation of the founders Aikido? And why isn’t Henry Kono’s explanation of Yin and yang a good enough explanation of what the founder was doing in regards to his Aikido at the very end of his life. After all it was in Henry’s ear he whispered “you don’t understand In/Yo”, and Henry that actually interpreted this version based on how the founders Aikido felt at that time, what he was doing that was different to the other students and instructors at Hombu.

And if so, aren’t the techniques of Aikido, designed if trained with the proper intent, enough to build an Aiki body? To understand his thinking after the war? After Iwama?

I stand strongly by my claim that your technique needs to be valid, not just in the Dojo. And that anyone that thinks that training in a controlled environment understands how their mind will react when under real duress and how there body will respond is dreaming. As I said earlier, if all those doing Aiki want it valid as more than just a Dojo trick, then this has to be experienced. After all those prewar Aiki budo boys had one definite thing in common, they faced all challengers, and didn’t lose, whatever they had they had it tested. Can we say as much?

We do not act rightly because we have virtue or excellence, but we rather have virtue or excellence because we have acted rightly.

Ellis,
When I state Aikido, especially the Misogi part, I include all those exercise, as well a weighted bokken suburi, and many other exercises I have picked up over the years that to me are just Aikido. I do them in the Dojo, I do them in the park, at the beach, but, the thing is they are done, usually daily. So there is solo training, and when I say just do what he did and let the universe sort it out, I meant do all he did.

Thanks for your input....

We do not act rightly because we have virtue or excellence, but we rather have virtue or excellence because we have acted rightly.

Thanks for correcting my mis-quote. I had remembered it the wrong way around.

Quote:

Ellis Amdur wrote:

So, how about this. You do no solo exercises (even though O-sensei did). You just do aikido. And through the process, you develop aiki. May so. But I have found, in another context that when my trainees learn a kata, there are sticking points, there are flaws and no matter how many times we go through the kata (pattern drill) those flaws impair the development of everything. So I break out a single portion of the kata, maybe a single waza, maybe a fraction of the waza - maybe I have them repeat the movement on their own . . . .what's this? We are back to solo training exercises to hone specific skills.

So given that we need to do that anyway, why not make use of the methodologies that O-sensei felt were essential to develop his aikido? (not just his aiki)

I wonder if, despite his abilities, he actually had any real understanding of his own ability. I say this because of the number of Aikido masters who would say things like "You just need to relax" then demonstrate how easily they could throw around their students, their ease the result of a connected body, not just because they are relaxed.

My feeling at present is that, regardless of teaching ability, one has to pay very careful attention to how one's teacher moves -- everything from feet, hand and body positions to posture, timing and intent. Some of these facets seem to require a more fundamental understanding of the body -- ie: previous experience.

Lately I have been training a lot with a particular sensei for whom his unconventional (by local standards) method of teaching and practice requires intense focus on what he is doing, and most people lapse into automatic ways, often not even having ability, or even knowledge of some of the fundamentals he bases his Aikido on. His classes are small, so very often there is an odd number of members and for about a third to half the practice I'm in a group of three, rather than a pair. I take advantage of that to pre-practice the movement he has demonstrated by myself, which often makes all the difference.

I was training with a young woman who goes to the same classes, and, despite having practiced for some years, she obviously lacks some very fundamental understandings that are important for what we practice. The concepts of atemi, even just the idea of striking, let alone Ueshiba's "Aikido is 90% atemi" (apologies in advance if mis-quoted) are completely alien to her. Nor does she have the physical strength to execute basic technique well. Since a lot of the practice requires a degree of internal connection, she completely struggles the majority of the time.

Given the failure I see constantly, even with experienced people (including myself) to correctly observe and mimic what my own teachers are trying to demonstrate, despite the far greater access to knowledge we have nowadays, and far greater explanation we're given, it doesn't surprise me so much that most of Ueshiba's students failed to pick up what he wanted them to given how he was described as teaching. You can't just turn up to class and expect enlightenment, one has to research, experiment and practice on one's own, and it seems the truly great martial arts masters are the ones who did that.

More fundamentally, I think the hard truth is that many people just aren't capable of dealing with highly complex self-development practices. The most spiritually advanced person I know has very extensive and detailed writings, yet not only can he convey what can only truly be self-realised, but most people who try and read what he writes almost immediately misunderstand, misconstrue, or blatantly misrepresent what he writes as they try and filter through their own limited understanding, instead of using it as a catalyst to bring themselves to a higher level of self-realisation.

In both spirituality and Aikido, it seems you need more than just an "open mind" but a determined desire to overcome the obstacles that limit you to understand greater things. In both cases, it requires a profound amount of focussed effort, including that to stay straight on the path and not become deluded.

Aikido chat: https://discord.gg/pPYTFh2Naturally having something useful to say is like natural responses during training: It takes much practice.

Years ago I had a ringside seat to view your teacher's (we will call him MK) development. This was the time when K Chiba headed the AGB. When Chiba returned to Japan, he summoned his father-in-law to spend a year in England and oversee the transition to what had become the BAF. Since I was at UCL, in London, my dojo was MK's dojo and I was able to see his development. My own training here has become largely based on spirals and opposing forces, but I would be hard put to explain how it developed. My influences here have been Saito's weapons, and the aikido of several Hombu shihans: Tada, Yamaguchi, Arikawa and Fujita (who also had some connection with MK).I suppose these teachers were/are part of the Kisshomaru school, which has evolved over the years anyway.

Finally, my time in the IAF allowed me to meet the present Doshu regularly (and privately) and my sympathy for the man increased. He once confessed that there were many avenues he would like to explore on the tatami, but he was prevented from doing so by the need to present what I would call 'standard Aikikai aikido.' He had no problem with me or anyone else doing spirals and opposing forces, but I had my own dojos and so was free to do what I wanted.

Finally, Peter Kelly has come in for some heavy flak in this thread and I can see why. However, he deserves our thanks for starting the thread to begin with and for helping it along.

Best wishes,

Your comments are insightful and relevant, as always, Peter.

Your mention of Seigo Yamaguchi is interesting, particularly put in the context of the "Kisshomaru school", as I consider him something of a exception in that context. Olivier Gaurin made a cryptic comment about Yamaguchi Sensei having "very solid bases issuing from Daito-ryu Aiki-jujutsu", and over time I have seen that his aikido had much in common with Shioda Sensei's, even though, on the surface, his elegant and fluid technique appears poles apart from Shioda's direct, almost percussive, aikido. His ongoing interest in the sword style of the Kashima Shinryu school (Sekiya Sensei was an example of this crossover, and, as you say, had a profound influence on KS). The kesagiri cut particularly resonates strongly with me now, since this feels very congruent with the spirals I mentioned above, which I see in the aikido of both Shioda and Yamaguchi.

Despite doing all of the more-less standard Aikido training it seems that you still have to chase aiki in other words you have to perform specific types of training to attain it.

I can only speak for the Aikido training I was taught and still teach when addressing your statement above.

Assumption 1; by "more-less standard Aikido training" I assume you are referring to technique practice, empty hand and with weapons, with a partner and solo weapons training.

Assumption 2; by "to chase aiki in other words you have to perform specific types of training to attain it." I assume you mean that the development of Aiki will not result from the type of training described in Assumption 1.

If my assumptions regarding your statement are incorrect feel free to correct me and I'll try to respond in light of your corrections.

I have never known Aikido training that didn't include exercises designed to develop and strengthen a unified mind and body. Those exercises are an integral part of standard Aikido training for me and have been for four decades. So going "outside Aikido" to learn to develop Aiki has no meaning for me.

As for "more-less standard Aikido training", I don't know what can be achieved in the way of the development of Aiki as I've never trained that way.

I have to apologise, I am not used to this forum stuff, and getting what I intend or attempt to say down clearly hasn’t been easy, I am a kinaesthetic learner, not an intellectual giant,

Anyway, trying to be clearer....

Hi Guys. I was one of Peter's students for a few years and I just want to make a few points. I won't comment on any of the specifics of what is being debated, but I will say that although Peter's writing is not always as clear as he would like it to be, his aikido is impeccable. He can walk the talk. Please approach any discussions on this basis. Obviously there is no way of knowing from an aikido forum like this whether a person is worth listening to if you haven't actually physically encountered them, so it is easy to pick apart forum posts on the basis of mistaken facts and logical inconsistencies (and yes there have been a few). In this case, I would suggest that that is not terribly productive.

Of course, you have no way of knowing if I know what I'm talking about when I bring up somebody's skill level, either, but we will have to make do...

I have never known Aikido training that didn't include exercises designed to develop and strengthen a unified mind and body. Those exercises are an integral part of standard Aikido training for me and have been for four decades. So going "outside Aikido" to learn to develop Aiki has no meaning for me.

The question begs to be asked, why did Ueshiba not see it as paramount to pass on the Aiki that he learnt from Takeda?
As I have seen stated elsewhere on other threads by Dan, Takeda passed it on to more than Ueshiba, as Sugawa shows. But O'Sensei chose not to pass it on after the war it seems. Why not? Once again, perhaps he surpassed that in both technique and spirit.
And if it was only taught before the foundation of Aikido, why bring it back into Aikido at all? Because the prewar students could do it?
And why choose Tohei, a man that didn’t study Aiki as his tenth Dan technical director?What changed in the founder during and after the war? I think there was evidence that he taught different things before the war, as can be seen by Shirata and Shioda both being able to represent internal power from the Daito Ryu syllabus but that wasn’t Aikido, at that time, that was Aiki budo, or Aiki jujitsu, or whatever the founder called it before the war, before the creation of Aikido. Before Iwama.
To say that there was even prewar Aikido is an oxymoron, as Aikido was established after the war.

So if you want to study Aiki budo or Aiki jujitsu or Daito Ryu, why study Aikido at all?

Since I posed questions, its only fair that I answer them, too.

First, I think there is a lot of speculation about much of the transmission instruction from Ueshiba. Clearly, there is his diminished presence in Tokyo following the war that points to his lack of participation in the Tokyo dojo. There are a bunch of good articles that shed some light on how much he was not around the Tokyo dojo in the 50 and 60's. I think there is also some consideration that Ueshiba had to balance his instruction as a daito ryu teacher, and his personal art, aiki budo. I think once it became aikido, it would be reasonable to expect Ueshiba would need to develop a curriculum that did not run afoul of his daito ryu instruction. Finally, I think its reasonable to also consider that 30 years changes a person - I would expect Ueshiba to be a changed person from his early teaching in the 30's to the time of his passing in the 60's. I think its hard to selectively choose a point in time to point to his teaching and disregard the other times. Speculate away, but I think it is tough even prove to me he choose not to pass on aiki, let alone a significant choice.

I think the time period in Ueshiba's life, his closeness to daito ryu, and the culture of Japan in the 30's through the war influenced both Ueshiba's instruction and the students in the dojo. I think you have to stick a giant firewall in your chronology once you start talking about martial instruction in occupied Japan following the war. You also start to see Ueshiba's diminished presence in Tokyo. You also start to see instructors who did not have access to the earlier training methodologies. You also start to see the political stress between the newer Tokyo students and the older students. I think you actually have a stronger claim that the post-war dojo did not teach the aiki training, rather than Ueshiba chose not too. This is of course supported by consistent claims from students who could not understand what O Sensei was saying when he did visit, and O Sensei's occasional rants about the instruction not being what he did. I think both generalizations are true. If I had difficulty in an advanced chemistry class, would you argue that the chemistry class was poorly taught? Or, possibly that my education was not sufficient to understand the content? Obviously, both answers could be accurate and also inclusive of each other.

For me, there is a critical element in the early 50's - Aikido is for everyone. You have this martial art elevated to a "cultural" art as occupied Japan tried to show the world it wasn't bad. But there is one problem... not everyone could do the stuff O Sensei (and his earlier generations) could do. Heck, even some of the serious students who wanted to do what O Sensei could do and had better access than most people struggled with this proficiency... But here's this "silver bridge" promise looming with people from around the world ready to throw each other around a mat with the wave of a hand. Not to mention this message came from the Aikikai. The curriculum had to match the message and so then we see the fortification of Aikikai curriculum and a unified system of training - which is not what O Sensei did. Also, political things enter the scene here and you see students politely and discreetly leaving the aikikai scene. To answer your question about Tohei Sensei? Why not select him? He was attractive, willing to engage the promotion of aikido, recorded in the earlier videos, and capable of demonstrating aikido.

I think Ueshiba's status after the war was more affected by his Japanese nationalist socio-political views and his ultra-religious political ties which made him unwanted in occupied [modern] Japan. I think his influence in the Tokyo dojo diminished and the aikikai had firmly made a commitment to teach an art to 100% of a training population - something which is as ludicrous as it sounds.

So why study aikido at all? A great question, since there are other methods of training aiki and using aiki in other fight systems. Why train in Japanese arts instead of Chinese? What about Indo-Chinese arts? As an honest question, I think this is very important. For me, aikido is a method of movement that is natural, productive, healthy, and effective in basic martial context. It fits my lifestyle and it also happens to fit my moral and spiritual beliefs. But the rub is that you have to have the aiki internal engine. Your body has to move the right way in order to successfully use it for aiki-do.

The argument has never been about aikido. The argument is about whether we know enough about how to move our body that we can understand aikido. There was a quote about how O Sensei could look at another martial art, or another "do" and he would exclaim, "aha! I know this!" I think he one time gave a dancer a compliment of the sort. Why? How could he do this? Because he knew how the body works and saw the dancer did, too. I will often use a parlor trick to explain this point... Here it is...
Rotate your arm as far as you can without assistance. Stick it out and turn. At some point, I ask the person, "is that as far as you can turn?" "Yes." "Okay." Then I take the arm and continue to rotate it, usually a significant amount - a "stretch" like a PT would manipulate you. I then say, "yep, look at the mastery you have over your body. Such a command of understanding how your body works that you can't even turn your arm as far as it can go." I say think teasingly, because the extra rotation that the person cannot actually control is usually pretty large (athletes and body people usually perform better, btw).
Why do I use this trick? Because its natural. A good analogy to the trick is stretching to touch toes. Many of us cannot touch our toes any longer without first stretching. Some cannot touch their toes without first conditioning their bodies for a period of time. So if you wanna touch your toes? Learn how to make your body do it.

Aikido was made for people who know how to use their bodies using the aiki body movement methodology. Its not a substitute for learning how to move the body, but there is overlap and that's the murky training that we talk about.

"Aikido" tends to be defined with a very broad brush, as you seem to be doing here, and I have long believed that to be dangerously misleading.

Here's an interesting thing. My own aikido teacher was originally a student of Gozo Shioda, even though he has been in the Aikikai for decades now. I've been increasingly aware for quite a while that there are mismatches between the way his aikido works and how most Aikikai shihan teach techniques. The mechanics of his body movement seemed more subtle and more softly persuasive than what I had seen in what you might call the "Kisshomaru school", and in a way that is nothing to do with mere relaxation or softness in themselves.

After having noticed a certain person's name and opinions appearing regularly on this forum a few years back, out of curiosity I registered for a workshop he was due to give here in the UK. At that workshop, I had an epiphany: all of a sudden, I saw that my aikido teacher's "aiki engine" was almost identical to the method this person was showing (even though the outward forms they show are very different) and, what's more, he was showing us a set of exercises he learned from his Daito Ryu teacher that were clearly designed to develop these skills. I could see that both men's movements were fundamentally based on spirals and opposing forces, which I have never seen in the modern Aikikai Hombu Dojo style. Watching footage of Shioda Sensei and some of the senior Yoshinkan shihan, I can now see very similar mechanics to what I have seen of Sagawa and Horikawa from Daito Ryu.

Incidentally, I've come to the conclusion that the "aiki engine" of Koichi Tohei and his students (I assume this also applies to Maruyama Sensei, though it's been ten years since I saw him last) is different on a profound level from those of either modern Aikikai aikido or of the Daito Ryu / Shioda lineage. It seems very much based on the combination of deep relaxation with a very efficient use of gravity.

Now how this relates to Morihei Ueshiba (who of course had a Daito Ryu teaching diploma from Sokaku Takeda) is a whole other question...

Alex

Well, these conversations never really go anywhere, so I'll just note that, while I agree that Shioda shared body methodology with some daito ryu people, there are major differences too, which are even more pronounced in his students.The more that I've trained in DR, the more profound I've found these differences to be, which is one reason why I advocate people actually train in the art in a prolonged manner. Shioda met and trained with Horikawa BTW. I also think that the 'engine' analogy is not really an accurate one, for reasons too lengthy to go into, but to use another analogy, taking the same 'vitamins' from a food or from a pill isn't really the same 'thing' either.

It's speculated that it was actually after 1955 that it became "Aikido for everyone".

I think a lot of the propaganda can be found in the later 50's. The US occupied Japan until '52, so figure a few years to get things together and consolidate the message and that would put you later into the 50's. I like to use "Rendez-vous with Adventure" as a firm measure for my publicity comments and that was published in '58. Nothing says baby boomer like that guy's voice from every documentary created between 1950 and 1972.

I am not sure about what Goldberg Sensei is demonstrating here, but i see the uke is grabbing weakly at the outset and never attempts to maintain or regain stability at any point in the demonstration, which negates the claim of using aiki to affect uke's posture. Taking uke's posture at the initial contact and exploiting uke's attempt to regain posture should be a critical component of the way of aiki in my view. I do not see that in the video posted; despite Goldberg Sensei's claim that uke is not one of his regular ukes and is thereby not complicit in the demo, the video shows otherwise.

I am not sure about what Goldberg Sensei is demonstrating here, but i see the uke is grabbing weakly at the outset and never attempts to maintain or regain stability at any point in the demonstration, which negates the claim of using aiki to affect uke's posture. Taking uke's posture at the initial contact and exploiting uke's attempt to regain posture should be a critical component of the way of aiki in my view. I do not see that in the video posted; despite Goldberg Sensei's claim that uke is not one of his regular ukes and is thereby not complicit in the demo, the video shows otherwise.

Essentially, as long as he maintains contact kuzushi is present. In other words uke can't regain his balance.

Well, these conversations never really go anywhere, so I'll just note that, while I agree that Shioda shared body methodology with some daito ryu people, there are major differences too, which are even more pronounced in his students.The more that I've trained in DR, the more profound I've found these differences to be, which is one reason why I advocate people actually train in the art in a prolonged manner. Shioda met and trained with Horikawa BTW. I also think that the 'engine' analogy is not really an accurate one, for reasons too lengthy to go into, but to use another analogy, taking the same 'vitamins' from a food or from a pill isn't really the same 'thing' either.

This is an interesting point and something for conversation, I think. As a premise, I happen to believe that internal power body movement is pretty old and existent in any number of arts across a number of geographies. I also happen to think the methodologies of training have overlapping components and unique components. So how can we be respectful and conscious of the methodologies that impact our training? At what point are we being disrespectful? I think this line is fluid, but something that also drives our training.

Part of this thread is talking about elevating a particular training methodology and arguing its merits.

Well, these conversations never really go anywhere, so I'll just note that, while I agree that Shioda shared body methodology with some daito ryu people, there are major differences too, which are even more pronounced in his students.The more that I've trained in DR, the more profound I've found these differences to be, which is one reason why I advocate people actually train in the art in a prolonged manner. Shioda met and trained with Horikawa BTW. I also think that the 'engine' analogy is not really an accurate one, for reasons too lengthy to go into, but to use another analogy, taking the same 'vitamins' from a food or from a pill isn't really the same 'thing' either.

Well Oisin,

you've got a point here.

But Sagawa-father and young Sagawa-son had the same teacher, Takeda Sokaku. Hot Sagawa-father didn't fare well, as soon as he tried his technique for real, Sagawa-son didn't have any of those problems, because he had stolen Aiki, wich made all the difference. You see, even taking the vitamins from the same source isn't a guarantee either…

But Sagawa-father and young Sagawa-son had the same teacher, Takeda Sokaku. Hot Sagawa-father didn't fare well, as soon as he tried his technique for real, Sagawa-son didn't have any of those problems, because he had stolen Aiki, wich made all the difference. You see, even taking the vitamins from the same source isn't a guarantee either…

It's also impossible to verify. Sagawa never had a good word to say about anyone, apart from himself. Using sagawa as an reference for anything basically renders the claim invalid as, according to sagawa, no-one got the super duper secret aiki (TM) except sagawa. In fairness to him, he wasn't splashing himself all over the internet boasting about it.

It's also impossible to verify. Sagawa never had a good word to say about anyone, apart from himself. Using sagawa as an reference for anything basically renders the claim invalid as, according to sagawa, no-one got the super duper secret aiki (TM) except sagawa. In fairness to him, he wasn't splashing himself all over the internet boasting about it.

Oh, I don't know..
But I agree that it is nearly impossible to verify.

As I understood, he supposed, that you never could say, wether your Aiki was the same as someone else's, because of the nature of Aiki. He apparently told Kimura, that he weren't sure about this sameness in the case of him and his venerated teacher. But he didn't exclude that someone could reach the same level as his own, that's probably why he trained to the last day….
...very much like many others.
And here everyone may name his preferred figurehead.

In our quest for final historical accuracy, we may be doomed to fail, though at least a few of us have brought a shimmer of light into the world of contemporary budo, and this in an entertaining way....

Oh, I don't know..
But I agree that it is nearly impossible to verify.

As I understood, he supposed, that you never could say, wether your Aiki was the same as someone else's, because of the nature of Aiki. He apparently told Kimura, that he weren't sure about this sameness in the case of him and his venerated teacher. But he didn't exclude that someone could reach the same level as his own, that's probably why he trained to the last day….
...very much like many others.
And here everyone may name his preferred figurehead.

In our quest for final historical accuracy, we may be doomed to fail, though at least a few of us have brought a shimmer of light into the world of contemporary budo, and this in an entertaining way....

Best,
Bernd

Oh I agree that there is certainly room for historical research etc. I just don't think that research based on Sagawa is particularly useful, mainly because he was so private, but also he was so dismissive of pretty much everyone (including Ueshiba), and, according to his own long term students, he delibrately misled his students. He was pretty damning about Sokaku too BTW: I think he said that Sokaku had aiki, but nowhere near to the level that he (sagawa) had developed. So who knows what the truth really was?

It's also impossible to verify. Sagawa never had a good word to say about anyone, apart from himself. Using sagawa as an reference for anything basically renders the claim invalid as, according to sagawa, no-one got the super duper secret aiki (TM) except sagawa. In fairness to him, he wasn't splashing himself all over the internet boasting about it.

Well, he did die before the WWW was really widespread. I don't know if he ever posted on BBS-es or usenet newsgroups though. That would have been interesting.

Your mention of Seigo Yamaguchi is interesting, particularly put in the context of the "Kisshomaru school", as I consider him something of a exception in that context. Olivier Gaurin made a cryptic comment about Yamaguchi Sensei having "very solid bases issuing from Daito-ryu Aiki-jujutsu", and over time I have seen that his aikido had much in common with Shioda Sensei's, even though, on the surface, his elegant and fluid technique appears poles apart from Shioda's direct, almost percussive, aikido. His ongoing interest in the sword style of the Kashima Shinryu school (Sekiya Sensei was an example of this crossover, and, as you say, had a profound influence on KS). The kesagiri cut particularly resonates strongly with me now, since this feels very congruent with the spirals I mentioned above, which I see in the aikido of both Shioda and Yamaguchi.

Alex

Hello Alex,

The thread seems to have run to its own conclusion, but there is room for one more response. I remember lunchtime sessions at Ryushinkan where Sekiya taught MK the elements of Kashima Shinryu. Of course, MK was originally Shioda's student. I have not seen any recent videos of his aikido, but I would think it has achieved a fruitful blend of the two approaches.

The thread seems to have run to its own conclusion, but there is room for one more response. I remember lunchtime sessions at Ryushinkan where Sekiya taught MK the elements of Kashima Shinryu. Of course, MK was originally Shioda's student. I have not seen any recent videos of his aikido, but I would think it has achieved a fruitful blend of the two approaches.

Best wishes,

PAG

Hello Peter,

As you said, there is always room for one more response.
If you were relating a great Aikidoka, a sensei I once met and who took my ukemi around 1984/1985 in Köln, Germany, and whom I like to name KM, then I would say that he is one of the very few who really impressed me. At the time his aikido was still very robust and powerful, nevertheless taking care of his Uke in quite a loving way, to the contrary to CK, who preceded him in the UK.
KM, in a way, emanated power from his whole integrity. His "warming-up" was quite a revelation. His aikido seemed to come from his heart.

In our quest for final historical accuracy, we may be doomed to fail, though at least a few of us have brought a shimmer of light into the world of contemporary budo, and this in an entertaining way....
Best,
Bernd

Like a shimmering mirage.

dps

Trust only movement. Life happens at the level of events not of words. Trust movement. --Alfred Adler

So aiki? Changing the engine, or at least, radically changing the gear ratios. Making the engine self-lubricating and self-repairing, so it gets stronge
Of course, others may regard the martial art itself as overly stylized, as inefficient - - - - maybe all that's true too. But it's also a fairly wonderful idea to have a 1938 Packard with a supercharged engine and 26 coats of opalescent black lacquer paint. (hint - that's a metaphor

A limited edition 1938 Packard?

dps

Trust only movement. Life happens at the level of events not of words. Trust movement. --Alfred Adler